Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

[@jarrettknipp5147]

Give me a break using a table, you’re just showing how refraction breaks off the bottom half of a picture. You’re still seeing the tops of the buildings with no refraction, #TheEarthIsFlat

[@libertyresearch-iu4fy]

Give me a break. Where are the bottoms of the buildings? Is a tidal surge covering them up?

[@YahuahIsKing1229]

@Andrew Stewart right cause it’s spinning you just can’t feel it, you live on a magical oblate spheroid.. Wait, all the pictures show a perfect round ball.. Magic

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Jarrett Knipp Nope. They show refraction occuring on the video., champ. We can all see the distrotions assoiciated with refraction. They are then using the edge of the table to obscure the image, they then show how refraction brings the angular position of distant obscured objects up into view. Tip: Your flat earth doesn't have a bulge or edge on the water to obscure the view in the first place like the demonstration.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@YahuahIsKing1229 "right cause it’s spinning you just can’t feel it," The circumference is 40,075 km, the radius 6371 km. Physics shows us you cannot feel that tiny acceleration caused by such angular change. And you cannot feel velocity. "you live on a magical oblate spheroid.. Wait, all the pictures show a perfect round ball.. Magic" If you actually used your brain and looked for the entire explanation instead of stopping when someone else told you you have an argument, you would know the variation vertically against horizontally is only 40 km. So when can see the entire globe, you will never be able to see the tiny oblate distortion. You just announced in public you're ignorant of basic facts. Thanks for showing us why you believe in flat earth.

[@Mogul20478]

the earth is not flat....dumbass

[@BereanFellowship]

its flat bro

[@isiahbanks147]

corey willard it's round bro

[@andrewhernandez9857]

Its cubed

[@franciscovilla1100]

@@isiahbanks147 prove it

[@HoosierGroyper]

Its a triangle bro

[@ragdoll8807]

it’s literally a 4th dimensional nacho cheese Dorito

[@GregoryBaldi]

Refraction will magnify, and push your image down. A mirage will mirror and flip. Technically you wouldnt even be able to see the skyline with 2k of the curve.

[@LiberatedMind1]

Nope, there are refractions that push the image up, Looming is one example.

[@LiberatedMind1]

Ruan Oh really?

[@founderofisis6627]

@@buscandoaluz You can clearly see the city of Chicago on top of lake Michigan when it's obviously not an island. What do you call that then?

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

"Refraction will magnify, and push your image down." Nope. Light is bent towards greater density. Thats why lenses are that shape to bend the light inwards to magnify it. The atmosphere is normally densest as a layer next to the surface, so light in it is mostly bend downwards over great distances. Bending the radiating light from an object downwards has the effect of raising it's perceived angular position relative to your eye. You do get inversions at the surface in certain conditions, but they are fleeting and create the image inversions and bands of stretching, sometimes.

[@GregoryBaldi]

@@Cosmic-Spanner Yes, greater density, as indifferent refraction rates. The atmosphere is billions of water particulates and over vast distance, we start to curve light causing sunset and sunrise. Water particulates are at their lowest overhead.

[@geminiifilms6768]

lol that professor sweating

[@victorneely7964]

Even with our own eyes you can see Chicago and still they will try and explain it away with experiments that are always convoluted. The GREAT experiment that you are ignoring is the photographer that took the picture of Chicago's skyline. Water NEVER curves. Water ALWAYS seeks its level. You can do these experiments at home.

[@kimmokannala4576]

Then, why the lowest 30+ floors of those buildings are hidden behind the water?

[@victorneely7964]

@@kimmokannala4576 If there were 30 floors hidden behind the water you would see very little of these structures but that's not the case as you can see for yourself . For arguments sake let's just say you were right and there were 30 floors hidden. If curvature was true you wouldn't see any of these buildings because they would be hidden entirely behind the curve. This is PROOF that there is no curvature.

[@Arafury57]

You seem a little delusional. Perhaps you should alter your medication.

[@TomCoomes]

But he can ONLY get a photo like that in Spring.

[@martell203]

@@TomCoomesIt doesn’t matter what time of year, if the Earth curves, no part of anything on the other side of the lake should be visible. This is not the only city that can be seen from across lake Michigan. It’s clearly flat. Thats why I can’t find any pictures or videos of Earth from space that aren’t CGI or photoshopped. Cant find any pictures or videos of any satellites in space either.

[@hydragirium]

I will prove here by numbers what Professor of Optical Physics said between 2:56 and 3:16. Mirage (refraction of light) is an incredible optical phenomenon, and it can be calculated, through this, C2 = kS² / 2R, and through this, S = √ (C / 0,0000686). The first equation provide the height or distance at which the refraction can be seen. And the second equation is the famous equation for calculating terrestrial curvature, BUT, the terrestrial curvature equation does not consider the refraction of light. Knowing this, we can calculate the distances (Chicago and Lake Michigan, into sea) and the distance that the refraction propagates, in this case, the Chicago mirage. Michigan's height in relation to sea level is 304,8 meters (0,3048 km). Chicago's height in relation to sea level is 182 meters (0,182 km). Using this here: S = √ (C / 0,0000686), we can calculate the distances that Michigan and Chicago can be seen with the naked eye without the effect of light refraction. * Note: The land curvature equation above is already converted into kilometers, as well as the distance between Lake Michigan and Chicago is 65 miles (104,60 km). The distance at which Michigan, located at 304,8 meters (0,3048 km) high in relation to sea level, can be seen without refraction effect, is: S = √ (C / 0,0000686) → S = √ (0,3048 / 0,0000686) → S = √ (4443,148688) → S = 66,65 km (41,41439 miles). The distance at which Chicago, located 182 meters (0,182 km) high in relation to sea level, can be seen without refraction is: S = √ (C / 0,0000686) → S = √ (0,182 / 0,0000686) → S = √ (2653,061224) → S = 51,50 km (32,00 miles). Now we are going to use the refraction equation, C2 = kS² / 2R (This is what ALL curvature calculators do not take into account). * Explaining the equation: The letter (k), which is equal to 0,125, and can be obtained by following this here: k = 1 / r / 1 / R → R / r, where (r) is the radius generated of the curve by refraction, and this describes an arc of radius circumference (r), and in successive experiments it has been proven that the value of this radius (r) is approximately 8 times the radius of the Earth, that is, r ~ 8R (R / r → 6371 / 8x6371 → 0.125). Chicago can be seen without refraction at 51,50 km (32,00 miles), BUT, the observable reality takes into account the refraction of light, so we have for Chicago a height (C2) of refraction: C2 = kS² / 2R → C2 = 0,125 x (51,50) ² / 2 x 6731 → C2 = 0,125 x 2652,25 / 12742 → C2 = 26,01 meters or 0,02601 km (0,0161618 miles). Depending on the weather conditions of the day and time of observation, Chicago has a refraction of 26,01 meters (0,0161618 miles) high above 51,50 km (32,00 miles) into the sea. Knowing this, let's see how many kilometers a height of 26,01 meters can be seen? S = √ (C / 0,0000686) → S = √ (0,02601 / 0,0000686) → S = √ (379,154518) → S = 19,47 km (12,09809 miles). Conclusion, Chicago disappears on the horizon at 51,50 km (32,00 miles), BUT, the refraction of light "projects Chicago" plus 19,47 km (12,09809 miles) INTO the sea, totaling 70,97 km (44,098714 miles). However, those on Lake Michigan have a horizon line of 66,65 km (41,41439 miles), so the distance for those on Lake Michigan to the refraction of Chicago is: 1 - Chicago plus refraction into the sea = 70,97 km (44,098714 miles), MINUS 104,60 km (65 miles), is equal to 33,63 km (20,896713), which is the distance that Lake Michigan fades away. 2 - The horizon line of the Lake Michigan into the sea = 66,65 km (41,41439 miles), MINUS 104,60 km (65 miles), is equal to 37,95 km (23,581037 miles), which is distance to refraction of Chicago (Chicago mirage). 3 - Result, 37,95 km minus 33,63 km, is equal to 4,32 kilometers INTO the refraction of Chicago (Chigaco mirage), OR, 70,97 km MINUS 66,65 km, is equal to 4,32 kilometers INTO the refraction of Chicago (Chigaco mirage). And because of that number (4,32 km) we can see Chicago at ground level. * Result in miles, 23,581037 minus 20,896713, is equal to 2,684324 miles INTO the refraction of Chicago (Chicago mirage), OR, 44,098714 miles MINUS 41,41439 miles, is equal to 2,684324 miles INTO the refraction of Chicago (Chigaco mirage). And because of that number (2,684324 miles) we can see Chicago at ground level. EARTH IS NOT FLAT... WE ARE IN THE 21st CENTURY, WAKE UP, FLAT EARTHERS!

[@DreamingConcepts]

Aren't mirrage supported to be always upside down? Also, shouldn't be a slight line at the top mirrage (where the water level is supposed to be)

[@hydragirium]

@@DreamingConcepts - I thought about that too at the time I made this comment, but then I remembered that optical phenomena, even rare phenomena, can happen in many ways. I also took into account the height in relation to the sea level of the two cities (in this case the photographer's height doesn't matter). After this, I tried to anchor myself in the explanation of the Optical Physics Professor said between 2:56 and 3:16... and I started to calculate and it worked. Outdoor optical effects are complex, man, I'm not an expert in optical physics, but I know that the calculation in question takes into account a high refractive index (that's why light bends). Bye

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@DreamingConcepts Strictly it's not a mirage. It's atmospheric refraction. Some call it looming. Here are two video codes [put them in a YT search to find the right videos], one shows light in a pressure gradient to scale and the other shows a demonstration of looming. WCaHvZQnIws Dktw9ncLuhg

[@ronnielsen8404]

Who ever wrote and thinks that explains anything is not only fooling everybody that believes this crap but also fooling there selves,,,phenomenon yeah phenomenon

[@pianojonb3]

So how did they charter a boat and video the entire trip 50 miles and the city didn't invert nor was it a mirage.

[@roohif]

Did you not hear him say that a "mirage" means that it is a "mirror" image ... ? The Chicago skyline is not a mirage, it's what's called "looming". It's simply downwardly bending light - and since it's bending downwards, it allows us to see over obstacles, like the curvature of the earth ..

[@quanah]

Using a flat surface as the example at 3:48 mmmmk

[@yutehube7633]

It's like they are trying to slip the truth out but calling it a debunk video. Tom Coomes isn't some shill or whatever, he even admits (albeit probably completely by accident) that the atmosphere acts as a lens, which explains the "half shutter effect" as I call it where the sun gets cut into by the horizon even though Earth is flat. Most people arguing that this isn't possible haven't looked into how optics works.

[@gratefulbear7478]

And a reader glass lens. These scientists are epic sellouts they deserve to be homeless bums. All they do is lie.

[@MaGaO]

@@yutehube7633 Sorry, unless you can prove that atmospheric inversions happen almost every day so the Sun seems to be lower than it is, your lens effect doesn't exist.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@yutehube7633 "Most people arguing that this isn't possible haven't looked into how optics works." But you could put a short explanation in your post. You're seriously maintaining that an object 3-4k miles high can look as if it's being obscured by WATER that's 100% flat? If the sun is 3k miles high above you at midday, and travels 1000 miles or 15º per hour, then. setting at 9pm it will have travelled 9k mi around the curve and will be about 8000 miles straight line from you. So how does something 8000 miles distant and 3000 miles high get to look like it's bottom half is BELOW something thats at about 0º from your eye? And the "atmosphere is a lens" claim ISN'T science. Two meteorologists using the term lens informally doesn't define the science. You cannot form a lenticular shape in the air because the density layers would sort themselves back into a density gradient. Water cant form lenses or your kettle would magnify things instead of pumping out steam. You would need a lens with a single focal point at your eye to follow your view of the horizon. It simple doesn't exist.

[@sherycesalek9771]

Nice catch!

[@mickyd3287]

Your better off just forgetting flat earth & globe theory for a minute & be really , really honest with yourself. Look at the picture & ask yourself with your own senses, am I really seeing this or not. For me weather the earth is flat or a globe if i had taken this picture & could see this that clearly from where I was standing, I'd trust my own senses & say that's not a mirage. To me it's blatantly obviously. For any person to convince someone they're not seeing this from a picture they've taken is quite worrying in itself.

[@Magnum-Farce]

" I'd trust my own senses & say that's not a mirage. " Do you trust your own senses when you look at an optical illusion, champ?

[@Captain-Obvious1]

"I'd trust my own senses & say that's not a mirage. " Why don't you trust your senses and see that the building are literally changing shape in the footage? Pretty F obvious. Denial isn't a good look for anyone.

[@DanielColageo]

Well said.

[@Magnum-Farce]

@@DanielColageo Thank you.

[@DanielColageo]

@@Magnum-Farce that was for micky d

[@lionchrist351]

it's easy. Show us a live satellite broadcast so we can see the earth spinning. That would make the whole debate superfluous.

[@MaGaO]

There was Earthcam, a Dish Network channel that broadcast a camera pointing at Earth from one of their satellites. The camera ended up failing (space isn't forgiving) but you can check out sped up videos on KZbin.

[@robbiehiatt9966]

@@MaGaO there's no doubt they push round earth, would be easy to fake

[@MaGaO]

@@robbiehiatt9966 He asked for a satellite broadcast. I pointed out one. Everything else is making up excuses. If you want to check that Earth's spherical, you can do it with just one tool: a water level. When using it while looking at distant similarly high places, you will find out that they are consistently seen below the level line (save for some anomalous atmospheric conditions leading to non-standard refraction). In fact, you will find this to happen even with higher places if they are far away enough. No need to speculate about the horizon. No complex instruments. No CGI. No Fata Morgana, no orography, no large bodies of water required. Just a couple of places high above the ground between them and a water level. I mean, it might be done with a bubble level and it can be done with a topography level but it can't be much simpler than a transparent flexible plastic tube with enough water inside.

[@robbiehiatt9966]

@@MaGaO how far up the horizon is is based on how far you can see that day, it will appear higher the farther you can see. Surely you can agree with that. Some days you can see 120 miles, some days its 20, understanding how we see is complicated. Disagree if you wish, but anyone with just a little bit of understanding can see what I'm saying and regardless what your level says, not to mention the mountains heights come into play as well obviously a shorter mountain would be lower. That's common sense

[@MaGaO]

@@robbiehiatt9966 The horizon doesn't matter in my experiment because the place being looked at can be above the altitude of the observer and, if it is far enough, it will still not reach the horizontal. Orography doesn't matter because the place being looked at *can be above the altitude of the observer* and, if it is far enough, it will still not reach the horizontal. And yes, the level matters because it shows what the local horizontal is. Unless, of course, architects, topographers and the like have been finding the horizontal incorrectly for centuries. I'm not even being clever by carrying out this experiment: Rowbotham tried a botched version of it at Bedford Level and concluded that it proved Earth to be flat, only to be refuted by Alfred Russel Wallace a few years later. Evidence will trump _common sense_ every single time.

[@jaythomas3224]

So if multiple people take this picture on multiple days with multiple weather conditions is it still a mirage

[@KNT.63]

No it is not a mirage there are plenty of other people that go out there even people that live there that show it is not a mirage and there are other places all over the world where you can see way farther than that there are photographers now that use infrared lenses over 100s of miles funny thing is when I tried to find this video I typed in Rob skiba, because him and his friend show that it is not a mirage they start at one end filming the skyline driving a boat while filming all the way to the other side it was not a mirage

[@debbegehringer3171]

I miss Rob 😢

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@KNT.63 "show that it is not a mirage they start at one end filming the skyline driving a boat while filming all the way to the other side it was not a mirage" Nope. They assumed a mirage is separate entity from the light your eye sees and there would be a transition. Whereas a mirage is made from the light you see up close just at a longer distance affected by refraction. So, Skiba only proved he didn't understand what a mirage is.

[@rickwhite9748]

@@KNT.63 truth

[@speed_demon420]

Cold air doesn't rise

[@the_flat_earth_warriorz]

*HEY TOM, EXPLAIN WHY NEIL DEGRASSE TYSONS SAID YOU CAN'T SEE CURVATURE VIA RED BULL JUMP @ 127,000 FT HIGH, HE SAID NO CURVATURE, EXPLAIN THAT ????*

[@entangledmindcells9359]

Get a life.. the earth is not flat

[@MaGaO]

Maybe because human sight is more limited than cameras in that regard. For example, we don't have 100°+ precise vision.

[@the_flat_earth_warriorz]

@@MaGaO when you zoom in ( Nikon P900 ) on boats over the HORIZON = HORIZONTAL LINE ( not CURVIZON ) they come back in view and didnt go over a so called curve,,,,Military ships have Laser weapons that shot 100 miles....NO CURVE....Lasers and Water dont bend...Wake up stop being a fool !!!!

[@MaGaO]

@@the_flat_earth_warriorz If you fiddle with a P900 from its largest aperture into its smalles one, you can make things look like they disappear but they don't. Military ship lasers cannot shoot other ship at 100mi because it is below the horizon. In fact, I cannot find any reference about a military laser being able to hit anything 100mi away. Lasers *do* bend, as The Action Lab proved. Water *does* bend, as Soundly proved. I am not the fool in this conversation, sorry.

[@the_flat_earth_warriorz]

@@MaGaO Globe shattered 1200+ mile shot should be 600k of curvature kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqDFn4KKgK6djac

[@ridwanmujahid_2.020]

Tom, I feel so bad for you. Just reading some of these comments gave me a headache, I can't imagine how discouraging it would be to get on your channel. Sometimes it doesn't help to try to explain stuff to certain people. I certainly found this extremely interesting and appreciate your very informative explanation!

[@TomCoomes]

@@ridwanmujahid_2.020 in the world of social media, engagement is engagement. I’m happy with the work I did, and even how I was challenged by those that are skeptics. I went the extra mile to explain this phenomenon. But no, I don’t read these comments on the regular. It was nice seeing your message though.

[@FOUNDEDEARTHBROTHERS]

If the illustration at 3:13 were correct you would be looking up to see the buildings instead of eye level which is always the case.

[@Magnum-Farce]

Again, you show people you aren't observant and don't really understand what you're looking at. Now look at the angles of the landmasses at the lake edge and the lines of sight. They are more or less aligned. The explanation of the model states gravitation is towards the surface, so the verticals will be perpendicular to the LOS. It's not a great diagram, because they have exaggerated heights, but your main implication is false. We would be looking slightly down in real life. The city skyline would be less than 0.25° over the horizon and we know we look down at the horizon from theodolite measurements and the sextant dip value. Vids:Airliner: iPhone Theodolite app generates Flerf Tears 9 Jul 2021 Dark Star Water level: Horizon Drop at Varying Altitudes. Flat Earth Debunked. 18 May 2017 madmelon101 Drone: Flat Earth destroyed again. Yes the Horizon does drop when the Drone climbs to 1147 ft. 10 Apr 2017 Wolfie6020 HUD: Flat Earth - More proof the Horizon does NOT rise to eye level. 12 Aug 2017 Wolfie6020 How Abū al-Rayhān Ahmad al-Bīrūnī Measured the Size of the Earth. 27 Jun 2014 Sajid Ali Mir Mt Coolum Height: Flat Earth? Mountains rising to meet eye-level. 23 Feb 2018 Andrew Eddie

[@Magnum-Farce]

It's ok. We know you guys aren't interested in anything except affirming your bias. It's good that you show people the truth of how you react to evidence though! Well done.

[@MaGaO]

How many degrees would one need to look up?

[@Dr-Curious]

Maybe the diagram is too exagerated. But nope. When we measure the horizon, it's always lower than eye level. Search some videos. Those buildings are probably about 0.05° angular height over the horizon at the most. We look down at them on a globe.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@MaGaO "How many degrees would one need to look up?" I don't think these guys know how to calculate to derive evidence for their beliefs. Most believers eschew calculative evidence on purpose.

[@TheKonnoisseur11]

That flat experiment was a joke you can see the buildings because you’re staring at the buildings.

[@MaGaO]

Actually, you can see the buildings because you're staring above the buildings.

[@tsi87supr60]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aGrbkoluiL-graM Watch the whole video

[@ninjaempire9093]

What about the curvature of the Earth

[@lambisi]

This got me thinking... Water curves on the globe, stays level in pools and lakes. A mile wide lake has an 8 inch curve. If you built a mile long "level" swimming pool, will the water be 4 inches low on both ends.??

[@purpleXpotion]

Yes. We live in a reality where mega-ton ships can simultaneously hang right-side up & up-side down off an infinite sphere edge, because 🚢 stays glued to the underside of our spinning lava-cored waterball 🌎 with 🙌🏼gravity.🙌🏼 So OF COURSE 4” low on each end!! ..why would you even ask?? 🙃 Haha!! jk.. but Job 38 might have your answer. 🙂

[@MaGaO]

If you were to set an horizontal laser across a mile wide lake (using a level, for example), you would find out that the other shore was 8" below the laser light. I have actually done a similar experiment with a topography level over a distance of 30km and the hill I was aiming at was visibly below the level's horizontal line.

[@purpleXpotion]

@@MaGaO ok, so maybe there’s SOME curvature.. but I live at the beach, and when I stand still at the shore of this vast ocean, in person, with the waves crashing at my feet, while watching ships sail in the distance, ..it seems absolutely preposterous to believe they wouldn’t be flung off ..if this scene suddenly & violently became flipped upside-down at 1000 mph. (And yes I know.. you don’t feel speed sitting INSIDE a car.. but you sure would sitting OUTSIDE the car, ..on top of the roof.) So why not outside at the beach? ‘Surely you know where the wind comes from?’

[@MaGaO]

@@purpleXpotion I know it can seem preposterous but think about it like this: you feel the wind because the air has viscosity and it cannot move around you without resistance. It makes sense, then, that the atmosphere on a rotating Earth rotates with it, local perturbations aside. This means you shouldn't think of your being outside the car while the air stands still but as if the air moves with you. 1000mph looks like a lot but it actually is just the maximum tangential speed at the equator: the tangential speed is zero at the North Pole. Also, the centrifuge acceleration depends on tangential speed *and* radius. The calculations show the centrifuge acceleration at the equator is about 0.03m/s². Even more: for something to be flipped up and down, the period of rotation is important too. And Earth takes slightly less than 24h hours to complete a single rotation.

[@YahuahIsKing1229]

@@MaGaO 3rd grade science major here...

[@huddyhowell6469]

lol. these guys are just digging themselves a deeper hole.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Sure. People who can explain something that you cannot. You must be a flattie.

[@harambey]

@@Cosmic-Spanner so when the “conditions are right” I can see mountain Everest from my living room

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@harambey Can you make coherent arguments, champ?

[@CheesieGamer]

@@Cosmic-Spanner cosmic? I bet you have a Neil amstrong poster in your bedroom sheep

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@CheesieGamer Awesome crying there Abi.

[@joehova2833]

Lmfao this is hilarious. Check out Rob Skiba on lake Michigan, it's no mirage amigos lol

[@rubex229]

how can you explain seeing a flipped chicago skyline if this depicts flat earth, and better yet where are the lower halves of the buildings?

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

The amount of refraction is proportional to distance. It is the light of the object itself refracting, not some other object. Skiba, as usual, can't understand what he's doing so he films exactly what refraction theory predicts, but then makes a deceitful claim about it. It's looming champ. You cant even explain why the bases of the buildings are missing if they are built on the same level as the lake.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@rubex229 The video where he think the view of the town should switch from mirage to close, when refraction would be bending the same light as from the town itself? Haha. How can anyone NOT understand refraction that badly?

[@Gr-Ra5]

Talk about blind faith and ignorance of a topic. You have no clue what Skiba was claiming.

[@Captain-Obvious1]

"Rob Skiba, the famous PhD atmosphere specialist said so!" There has literally never been a more gullible subgroup of humans than flat earthers.

[@michaelrivera8618]

It's 1060 ft of missing curvature if the earth is 28,000 miles in circumference

[@AlexFoxthrot]

Look at the mathematician at play LMAO simpletons crack me up

[@ronandrews8532]

At only 50 miles looking across the lake its only 33 feet of curvature. It's only actually less than 8 inches of curvature for every mile. So what are you saying

[@ronandrews8532]

And that's at GROND level

[@roohif]

First of all, the circumference of earth is closer to 25,000 miles, not 28,000 miles. Secondly, what observer height are you using to determine how much is missing? If he's on top of the dunes, he could be more than 200 feet above the surface of the lake. And thirdly, how much of the buildings do you actually see in the image, i.e. how much is actually hidden?

[@brendanch]

"Wherever you think the image is, is not where it actually is." I feel in my mind that's more spooky to me than the earth being flat. what I literally see isn't true hmmmm. I truly feel like I'm in a simulation 😂

[@escthedark3709]

Mirrors don't reflect light to create the appearance of someone who isn't actually there. In reality, there is a clone of you on the other side of the glass standing in an identical copy of whatever room your in. A magnifying glass will also actually make things bigger depending on whether or not you are looking through it.

[@globe_atheist81]

Your explanation is a cover up. That's no mirage

[@Captain-Obvious1]

lol. Proof by assertion fallacy? Cool.

[@luansalmon]

This has been proven to be false. You really have a professional and ethical responsibilty to inform the public that your explanation of this phenomenon is wrong. Otherwise, you are responsible for thousands of people believing a lie.

[@digitalblasphemy1100]

did you go out to the lake and see for yourself? You don't have to take their word for it you know.

[@dross4207]

robert1969 ....hey moron, when you see the ISS it isn’t being blocked by the Earth. When it’s behind the Earth, you cannot see it. Same thing happens with cities. If they are far away, part of the Earth gets in the way, because that’s a natural aspect of a spherical body. Also, I work almost daily on Lake Michigan 35 miles north of Chicago, and guess what, on a clear day, you can see only the tops of the tallest buildings in Chicago, and Gary Indiana can’t be seen at all. You need to take your delusions elsewhere

[@dross4207]

Luan Salmon ...why don’t you watch Rob Skiba, which I’m sure you are aware who he is, and on his video of him leaving the harbor that he was at, filming Chicago from under 40 miles away, and yelping with joy, “see, Chicago isn’t a mirage “ while he’s showing a video of only the very tops of the tallest buildings. You can’t get better comedy than flattards. BTW, you might not want to push professional and ethical responsibility too much, because there are a lot of psychiatrists out there that are not living up to their professional and ethical responsibilities, as is evidence of your being free.

[@dross4207]

robert1969 ...that picture is famous around Flat Earth circles because it has been misrepresented as something that is a normal, everyday occurrence. It is not an opinion, but a fact that they knew ahead of time that it was going to be visible because of a superior mirage. The prediction that it would be visible was made on the forecast the night before. And as he said in the forecast, it IS NOT normally visible from that location. Zooming in won’t make it be seen, only conditions for a mirage will allow it to be seen. I don’t have any clue where you get your numbers from, but from 50 mi, 1250ft is obstructed, not 2166 ft. The tallest building in Chicago is 1453 ft. So even without a mirage, you would still see the top 200ft of it, but because of the mirage, and only because of the mirage, was that Flat Earth blunder picture possible. From where Rib Skiba left the dock, only 772 ft is obstruted, and that is exactly what he saw and videotaped. So, as usual, Flat Earthers show the curvature doing exactly as it’s predicted to do, but then claim flatness. It has to be a denial thing. And with the ISS, it is not visible the naked eye, it’s reflection is, just as a 2in mirror is visible from far away when sunlight is reflecting off of it. Reds Rhetoric actually confirmed it’s distance using its angular size and triangulation. You probably don’t want to hear what the results were. Even if you did, you would deny it for “reasons”. So, in short, you might want to get a new curvature calculator, so you can know what you should actually be seeing, and then you will see that it matches exactly what is predicted on a sphere that’s 25,000 mi in diameter. Don’t worry, I know you’ll still find an excuse to deny the reality that you’re seeing, but a least you’ll be denying the correct reality. BTW, have you found Gary, Indiana yet, because from here, it’s still missing, as are all the buildings in Chicago that are under 700ft tall. That’s a lot of missing buildings for not being obstructed on a flat plain. Oh, and by the way, have you guys found the ice wall, and the dome? Did you find a way to make a map that isn’t completely laughable, or find out why there are those mysterious southern star trails rotating clockwise in the same direction as those above the north celestial pole going in a counterclockwise rotation? What about a reality based explanation for the FULL SIZE Sun and Moon disappearing from the bottom up. Since your argument about the ISS’s apparent size, we know that you won’t try using perspective, since you know what happens to objects when they are further away from you. We also know that lines of perspective never cross each other, so I’d like to hear what explanation you’ll invent for that, since you yourself already excluded perspective. Why don’t you also explain the fact that the Sun is not seen circling overhead. Or why the lines of latitude match Polaris’ elevation in degrees, almost as if viewed from a sphere. And when a person from Melbourne, Australia and a person from Punta Arenas, Chile meet up at the South Pole, which one of them has to travel over 20,000 mi NORTH to get there? Come on dude, snap back to reality.

[@dross4207]

robert1969 ....BTW, zooming in on something has never, and will never bring any part of an obstructed object back into view.

[@ButtonsNBlunts]

Hey guys! Check it out! I just took a super dope image of a city right in front of me while the 20ft tall waves weren't blocking it! Scientists... Its not in front of you, its an upside down mirage because of the water in the air!

[@Necile2]

I've sat on the beach in New Buffalo, Michigan hundreds of times. All I could ever see was the top of the Sears Tower. I will believe my own eyes, thank you very much.

[@MaGaO]

What do you conclude from what you saw?

[@Necile2]

@@MaGaO That the Earth is curved. What am I supposed to conclude?

[@MaGaO]

@@Necile2 I thought you would conclude that the Earth is curved. It seems I guessed right :-)

[@spaceghost4628]

You ever used binoculars?

[@Necile2]

@@spaceghost4628 Not in that instance. Why?

[@studentjohn]

@Tom Coomes : Watching the video, and comparing it with close shots of the Chicago skyline... well you _can't_ see the lower buildings of the skyline in the 'mirage shot'. So,.. it's a nice video of a thing we know does happen, but I'm not sure you _need_ to invoke a mirage to explain seeing the Chicago skyline in the 'mirage shot'. The video shows that the Chicago skyline is entirely, or almost entirely, hidden from the sea level. The guy who took the image of the skyline says he took it from the top of the dunes. You can't tell exactly how high the dunes are, but from a bit of researching into Warren state park, where the images were taken from, they're big - at least 10 - 15 meters tall. if I put that viewing position into any of the Earth curve calculators that account for viewer height - e.g. the omnicalculator earth curve calculator - they tell me that only the lower 150 meters of the towers should be hidden from atop the dunes. If I compare the 'mirage' photo to near-shots of the Chicago skyline it looks like that's roughly the amount that is missing.

[@studentjohn]

Certainly, you can't see any of the lower level buildings, and the tall towers are all cut off above their base at about that level. When you're looking at the inversion from the dune tops it sounds pretty clear that you're seeing the towers because you've climbed the dunes, and it's just the inverted image that is the result of a mirage. So the buildings are entirely hidden from sea level, and partly revealed from 10-15 meters up. Well that's exactly what you'd get looking over a long shallow curve to the surface between the camera and the buildings. I'm tempted to guess that the original news story got their details wrong: They thought the image of the skyline was taken from sea level, rather than up the dunes, and so assumed this was something rare. Or, as the FE guys on these comments do: They never thought about the effect of viewer height in the first place.

[@roohif]

There's a spot at 42.001333° -86.553464° where Google Earth gives an elevation of 784 feet, and the lake itself is at 579 feet 👍👍

[@davebolich]

If you wanna be a stickler about it, yeah it's flat

[@Dr-Curious]

But oops. Obscuration.

[@null_s3t]

The IQ cap for this comment section is stuck around 80 🤣🤣

[@uap24]

I love how people try to debunk a model proved by many and hold onto a disproven model just because religion.

[@jasegtree4553]

If it wasn't a mirage you would be able to see it 365 days

[@rubex229]

how can you explain seeing a flipped chicago skyline if this depicts flat earth, and better yet where are the lower halves of the buildings?

[@jasegtree4553]

@@rubex229 the lower half of the buildings are hidden behind the curve.

[@kcmartin5958]

@@jasegtree4553 52 miles away, you shouldn’t be able to see any building. Using trig of the earth the skyline should be 1800 ft under the curve.

[@jasegtree4553]

@@kcmartin5958 🤦go away

[@kcmartin5958]

@@jasegtree4553 I mean I guess that’s one counter argument

[@eleazarfredes5754]

On peut voir l'île de Corse depuis le Sud de la l'Espagne , l'Italie et la France , 226 kms de distance et c'est pas un mirage , c'est la réalité , puisque la terre est plate 🛹

[@AlexFoxthrot]

Still here spreading lies

[@onefodderunit]

You believe every visible distant target which should be hidden behind a geometric horizon is actually a mirage? That's dumb.

[@MaGaO]

It's less dumb than you think: atmospheric pressure becomes lower as altitude grows. A given volume of air has a refractive index that depends, among other things, on its pressure (its density) so air at higher pressure has a higher refractive index than air at lower pressure. Also, light moving between materials with different density suffers refraction _toward_ the denser material and _away_ from the less dense material. And there you have it: as light moves away through the atmosphere, it moves into ever less dense air and gets refracted downwards in normal circumstances. It's not a lot but, over long distances, it adds up.

[@onefodderunit]

@@MaGaO If it were a mirage, it would be inverted. If you believe that's not Chicago but rather a projected image, you're delusional. What do you know about the moon? You don't know its size, its distance or if it's a solid object. You need to develop discernment between knowledge and belief. Do you believe that fifty years ago NASA was flying people to the moon for walks?

[@MaGaO]

@@onefodderunit A mirage can be inverted if there is a reflection. It can be straight up if it is only a refraction. The rest of your comment has nothing to do with the issue so I won't fall for that derail attempt.

[@onefodderunit]

@@MaGaO You're a gullible person. That is the purpose of asking if you believe in the Apollo hoax from 50 years ago. The horizon is horizontal, not curved. Water level is level, not curved. Either present scientific evidence for your otherwise belief, or go contemplate your gullibility on your own.

[@MaGaO]

@@onefodderunit Sorry, ad hominem is a fallacy. No, Earth isn't flat: I have detected curvature drop repeatedly at distances of 25 and 30km (approximately). You confuse _level_ , flat and horizontal. And you run away from the topic being discussed continuously, which doesn't actually help your position.

[@kaltwies]

You can see something the size of a 747 like the space station all the way into space as it passes overhead according to these same heliocentric globesters.

[@escthedark3709]

There are a whole bunch of people who go around photographing satellites from the ground as a hobby.

[@studentjohn]

I'm a satellite spotter: I track a few every clear night, and they show up where and when they're predicted. I've taken photo s through my telescope of a couple of the bigger, lower altitude ones and you can see their shape clearly. I've measured their altitudes and groundspeeds via triangulation (the same basic method surveyors use to measure hills and mountains, and which you can truth-test on aircraft or balloons if known height) and these come out as hundreds of km, and km per second respectively, as expected. I also have a UHF radio kit, which I use to follow signals produced by these machines. None of that is dependent on my word: The kit to do all the above costs about under $150 - a year's worth of saving up at most. And the basic stuff - even triangulation for height - can be done by eye to a rough measure.

[@studentjohn]

As for whether you should see these objects so high: A bit of experimenting tells me that, in direct sunlight, you can see a 1mm bit if glitter sparkle at 20 meters distance. If you scale up that 1mm to 10 meters - about the width of the solar panels on these machines and much smaller than the bigger ones - the 20 meters scales up to 200 km. Human eyesight, after a minute or so to dark adapt at night, is easily 10 x more light sensitive than in daylight. So , yes spotting these things in the evening, when the Sun is still on them, at hundreds of km should be well within the power of a dark adapted eye.

[@studentjohn]

And, to forestall a common question: If you live near hills, or a flight path (I do, for what it's worth), you can see that high hilltops stay sunlit for a minute or so after ground level sunset, aircraft at cruising height (10km or so) stay sunlit for up to fifteen minutes. An object at several hundred km height should, following that trend, stay sunlit for some hours - and this is what we see, as satellites are usually visible to the naked eye for 2-3 hours after sunset, then fade from sight - strongly suggesting they are indeed very high altitude, sunlit, objects with shiny/metallic surfaces.

[@jarrettknipp5147]

I guess when people when lighthouses 100 miles away it’s refraction too!!! #TheEarthIsFlatLookIntoIt

[@MaGaO]

If Earth were flat, lighthouses would be visible hundreds of kilometres away most of the time. Actually, a lighthouse will be seen from 100mi away only in very specific circumstances.

[@YahuahIsKing1229]

@@MaGaO only thing spinning is your brain...

[@MaGaO]

@@YahuahIsKing1229 Sorry, you must have thought we are talking about Earth rotation. We are talking about Earth's shape though. Better luck next time.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@YahuahIsKing1229 Spherical geometry and refraction perfectly account for seeing lighthouses at about 60 miles and rarely out 100. Try to find documentation evidence they are seen at 100 anyhow. You will fail.

[@Mitchell-lc5kj]

A superior Mirage has an inverted image. What kind of stuff are they trying to push here

[@Dr-Curious]

Superior refraction or looming doesn't. They are using "mirage" as a catch-all phrase. It's not really complicated.

[@Mitchell-lc5kj]

@@Dr-Curious give it up the earth is flat at the video when the ball becomes physically impossible

[@Dr-Curious]

@@Mitchell-lc5kj See how you can't refute my argument? "is flat" Nope - it's explained partly by refraction and the 76m elevation of the viewer. Imagine having a belief you haven't fact checked and that you can't understand how to present evidence for.

[@Mitchell-lc5kj]

@@Dr-Curious use your eyes look at another video when the ball becomes physically impossible

[@Mitchell-lc5kj]

@@Dr-Curious you mean any day the week I can go there and take a picture of Chicago from 52 miles away

[@maryusb91]

The earth is a sfere so why they use a flat table???

[@TomCoomes]

Mario the purpose was to show the photo of the city below the horizon. Even though the table itself was flat, the image was lower, on what would be a curve from the camera. The fact a lens could focus the light shows how an Image can be moved from it's real position.

[@normahostetler7859]

The distance and the drops are not proportional. It's not a fair analogy.

[@TomCoomes]

@@normahostetler7859 it's not an analogy at all, it's an actual experiment that shows you how a lens works. There is a object / image below a horizon and that lens can focus it above to be visible. Saying the atmosphere acts like a lens is the analogy. If the world was flat we should see that image of Chicago every clear day and that doesn't happen.

[@normahostetler7859]

Tom, lenses do interesting things based on their curvature and whether they are concave or convex, but between the lens and the photo, there is nothing to obstruct the view. The photo needs to be below a curved solid object with similar proportions as Chicago and the beach and then lets see what happens.

[@TomCoomes]

Norma Hostetler it would work the same. Try this. Take a flashlight and a map of the flat earth. Try to simulate sunrise and sunset for me. Remember it’s sunrise on one part of the planet and sunset in another at the same time.

[@Johnadams20760]

tom, you can't reason with flat earthers with science. sorry to say. you and josh have both said this isn't seen every day even when it is clar. only when the atmosphere has certain conditions. i have even shown serveral pictures taken by others to show to flat earthers. it goes in one ear and out the other. trying to talk to a flat earther about science to hoping they learn smoething is a complete waste of time

[@dabbingood2930]

LAMO... They are using a FLAT TABLE and a picture level with the FLAT table.. and then say this is how we are seeing.... Any questions.. Has to be the most idiotic debunk video I have ever had the pleasure of laughing at..

[@yutehube7633]

Tom Coomes: "So the atmosphere really is like, acting like a lens?" Expert: "Yes." He just admitted the reason the sun can set on a flat Earth. ;)

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

"'They are using a FLAT TABLE and a picture level with the FLAT table" They're using the physical edge of the table to obscure the image. Your flat earth doesn't have an edge. Pay attention.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@yutehube7633 Not unless your flat earth has a bulge or edge to physically hide the sun in the first place as in the demonstration. Tip: It doesn't. We know the sun travels 15º per hour because it has to get around the equator 360º in 24 hours. We know the length of the equator, 25,000 because of various travel data. So, the sun travels approximately 1000 miles in one hour. So if your sun sets at say 9pm, and it was overhead at noon, it has travelled 9,000 miles around it's path. So the distance from you to to the subsolar point is: Equator is 25,000 miles, so radius 3,958 miles, the sun has moved 135º so the chord or distance to is 7313 miles. You now have a triangle from you to the sun to the subsolar point allowing you to know the sun's distance from your eye using trig: 7,904 miles. We know the sun is 26.18 miles in size because we measured it, so the sun at this distance MUST BE: 0.2051º That's less than 50% of the size when over your head, according to the LAWS of physical geometry. At 7,904 miles your sun would be 20.7º relative to your perspective view when you assert it is setting. Thats 40 TIMES it's own angular diameter above the horizon if on a flat earth.

[@Dr-Curious]

@Foc@sLoc@s These guys? Well, sorta. Shame you don't even have a model yet though, heh.

[@ixholla1]

Interesting, does this Science Bend Radio Waves and Microwave waves as well? Because you can get a 40+ Mile Point to Point Wireless Radio Network Shot there with no issues but with the curvature of the earth you shouldn't be able to as the other side would be 200+ feet lower.

[@TomCoomes]

Yes. calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/39041

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Refraction bends all EM radiation.

[@Vynndii]

There are many different types of radio waves. Which ones are you talking about?

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

@@Vynndii doesn't matter, as all EM is affected by it.

[@Vynndii]

@@MaryAnnNytowl true but what I was going to get at with the OP is not all radios waves are *exactly* point to point. Many of them have an umbrella curve to them. But it doesn’t really matter since he never replied.

[@roasramirez8476]

FLAT 100%.

[@Arafury57]

You seem a little delusional. Perhaps you should alter your medication.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Proof 0%

[@noblecyborg-savage]

if it was a mirage wouldnt it be flipped upside down?

[@hunnedproofproductions5529]

The newscaster sounds like someone who is just regurgitating the non-sense they teach in school.

[@rodshop5897]

And you sound like a contrarian.

[@Gr-Ra5]

"who is just regurgitating the non-sense they teach in school." Except it's supported by scientific evidence and the resulting theory is used in optics and various fields. And this kind of refraction isn't really taught in school. Whereas, you will never meet a flat earther who can truly, personally explain their understanding in the beliefs they are told to hold.

[@hunnedproofproductions5529]

@@Gr-Ra5 - Sure dude. In school, they teach non-sense. The only real scientific explanations are proven through experiments. The skyline across Lake Michigan is NOT mirage. That school-taught nonsense is not explaining what we are seeing here. So stop it. It’s not my fault you grew up and wasted your money in college.

[@Gr-Ra5]

@@hunnedproofproductions5529 If you went to a cr@p school, that's a shame But if you concentrate, you can see I said this stuff isn't breally taught ah school level. I know it's hard for you guys. Atmospheric refraction is a fact of life. It's the same field of science that we use in optics. It perfectly explains the views using Snell's and Maxwell's laws. Your denial, based on ignorance isn't really important to anyone else. But your post with its lack of supporting evidence is amusing anyhow.

[@Gr-Ra5]

@@hunnedproofproductions5529 Practical demonstrations: Here are video codes (Paste them into a YT search or URL) of obscured objects being raised up above curvature in small scale. Dktw9ncLuhg 5lmmzvzz_Xs And here is a code for light bending in a fluid showing the mechanism you are denying. WCaHvZQnIws Here's refraction happening in time lapse at normal scale GyLzdQFU3Og Heres a search for a scientific paper link that explains why and how light bends towards greater density: researchgate Atmospheric Refraction Nauenberg Remember, crying about YOU and how you don't believe stuff isn't important. Only the evidence you use to make counter arguments and falsify all that evidence is important. But I'm guessing you can't understand this simple idea.

[@tonyornelas9374]

Refraction changes what's there it doesn't make something appear That's not there

[@rubex229]

how can you explain seeing a flipped chicago skyline if this depicts flat earth, and better yet where are the lower halves of the buildings?

[@tonyornelas9374]

@@rubex229 bingo

[@Captain-Obvious1]

YT Video: Refraction: Seeing over the curve... of my driveway Tj Wiets Try some research and knowledge.

[@gratefulbear7478]

Earth is flat.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Unsupported claims are usually false.

[@zookr]

Why can't they see the Rocky Mountains then

[@mywayorthehighwayking1356]

The earth is flat there's no other explanation.

[@AlexFoxthrot]

LMAO that's what simpletons Say. Nobody else.

[@cernicar]

EARTH IS FLAT

[@itsikcarmona9845]

I am a meteorologist. Let assume the viewer height 6 feets. You need incredible and almost impossible inversion . in order to see below height of 300 feets from a distance of 60milles. . The inversion should be increase of +22.2F degree per every 100 meter in height. The vertical temperature gradient. It is incense. The geometric hidden height is approx 1950 feets. But according to the photo we can see below 300 feets you need that the apperant curvature of earth due to refraction will be 5 time less or actually the refracted radius of earth five times higher than the geometric earth radius, 20000 miles instead of 4000 miles. The inversion should be increase of 22.2F degree per every 100 meter in height. The vertical temperature gradient. It is incense.

[@Dr-Curious]

"The inversion should be increase of 22.2F" Only, this isn't an inversion. "Let assume the viewer height 6 feets." It's 250' over lake level. "I am a meteorologist." Nope. You're a flat earther.

[@yutehube7633]

​Tom Coomes: _"So the atmosphere really is like, acting like a lens?"_ Expert: _"Yes."_ This concludes why the sun gets cut in half and eventually blocked completely on a flat Earth. Cheers ​Mr. Coomes.

[@MaGaO]

Actually no, it doesn't. For the sun to do that on a flat Earth, you would need a very specific atmospheric inversion as, instead of _bringing things up_ , it would need to bring the Sun down.

[@YahuahIsKing1229]

@@MaGaO yeah it’s called perspective, things converge and disappear as they move away... You can’t see forever silly..

[@MaGaO]

@@YahuahIsKing1229 But that's not perspective: perspective is a design tool to approximate reality. What you mean it's angular size and what limits what one can see if angular resolution. None, though, explain why the Sun disappears _under_ the horizon while not changing its angular size. Unfortunately, FE advocates often use terms without knowing their meaning or their consequences.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

"This concludes why the sun gets cut in half and eventually blocked completely on a flat Earth. Cheers ​Mr. Coomes." Nope.The edge of the table is cutting the city in half or obscuring it. You have no such mechanism on flat earth. We know the sun travels 15º per hour because it has to get around the equator 360º in 24 hours. We know the length of the equator, 25,000 because of various travel data. So, the sun travels approximately 1000 miles in one hour. So if your sun sets at say 9pm, and it was overhead at noon, it has travelled 9,000 miles around it's path. So the distance from you to to the subsolar point is: Equator is 25,000 miles, so radius 3,958 miles, the sun has moved 135º so the chord or distance to is 7313 miles. You now have a triangle from you to the sun to the subsolar point allowing you to know the sun's distance from your eye using trig: 7904 miles. We know the sun is 26.18 miles in size because we measured it, so the sun at this distance MUST BE: 0.2051º That's less than 50% of the size when over your head, according to the LAWS of physical geometry. At 7904 miles your sun would be 20.7º elevation relative to your perspective view when you assert it is setting. Thats 40 TIMES it's own angular diameter above the horizon if on a flat earth.

[@michaelgill137]

@@YahuahIsKing1229 we can see stars. If they are within 'perspective', then we can see anything.

[@awi9053]

See guys it's just a "mirage" 😂

[@Dr-Curious]

Yep. refraction. Fact of life. You can tell it's real, in part, because the people who are crying about it don't have any explanations and just express their incredulity as if it's an argument.

[@levimichael17]

@@Dr-Curious So you're say trust other people's words before your own eye witness account? Damn your world view must be insane.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@levimichael17 Refraction law isnt "words" champ. It's a law we can examine and test, used in optics and industry, peer reviewed and scientific consensus. So, you think nobody can trick your senses, like illusions and street magic? Thats so hilarious and cute.

[@watkinsjames82]

I've been seeing mirages my whole life and not a single one has the building's lights involved lol. This one has always made me straight question. I'm not sure I'm a flat earth person but this shit makes zero sense explained

[@Dr-Curious]

@@watkinsjames82 Refraction affects light, champ. That includes man made ones. "shit makes zero sense" Why would something you havent learnred about make sense to you, champ?

[@martell203]

You shouldn’t be able to see ANYTHING on the other side of Lake Michigan as it is SUPPOSED to be hidden by the curvature of the Earth.

[@AlexFoxthrot]

Wow, outstanding argument. Is reality too hard for you buddy?

[@martell203]

@@AlexFoxthrot It’s not my argument. I didn’t make the calculation for the curve. I can’t argue that point with you. I only know that according to “authoritative sources”, such as NASA, we shouldn’t be able to see Chicago from the eastern shores of Lake Michigan. Did you have anything to say that is related to my comment? Is there a new calculation for the alleged curvature or the earth that would explain? Or, are we able to see across the lake because earth isn’t a sphere and it just is what it is? You seem knowledgeable. Thanks for taking our time to enlighten me.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

You shouldn't have used a round lens. The inversions are in layers and so the distortions tend to be all vertical. They will use this lens claim for all their other BS about the sun's size not changing because of "lensing." The atmosphere cannot create a focal point that creates actual magnification of objects.

[@dontbotherme7948]

Everybody forgets that there are pictures proving the earth is round.....

[@ashman749]

The earth is round, just don't think it's a sphere or oblate.

[@mrnice9232]

Hahaha?? Sure you trust a picture over your own eyes! Right

[@dontbotherme7948]

@@mrnice9232 My eyes also tell me that it is round. We can only see a certain distance. If the earth was flat we would be able to see much further.

[@YahuahIsKing1229]

@@dontbotherme7948 newbie. You can’t see forever on a flat earth or a round earth. Atmosphere, humidity, dust, mountains etc.. You can see maybe 15 miles or so on the clearest night. They have taught us silly nonsense.

[@dontbotherme7948]

@@YahuahIsKing1229 But why should I believe you over trusted scientists. I believe what my eyes and scientists are telling me.The simple truth is we'd be able to see so much more with a flat Earth. Also, I've seen things like just the top of a mountain, then more and more of the bottom comes into view. Isn't this proof of a round Earth??? If the earth was flat the full thing would always be in view. It wouldn't start off at the top and keep growing.

[@KNT.63]

Not a mirage ,I was trying to find the video where Rob skiba(and his friend that grew up in the area,) starts at one side in a boat FILMING A VIDEO OF THE SKYLINE the buildings they sail the boat all the way over the water to the other side, proving it is not a mirage.

[@TomCoomes]

All they proved was Chicago was East of New Buffalo, something that was not in dispute. If they had gone to Warren Dunes and repeated the experiment multiple times, they might see or in this case NOT see the Chicago Skyline most the time.

[@TheKonnoisseur11]

If it was just silly things people were saying on the internet why put this effort into proving it with this convoluted Mumbo jumbo

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

The important factor is that you cant actually make an intelligent argument against the explanation. And neither can any flattie.

[@GarageStudio7]

@@Cosmic-Spanner Cool air causes illusions now....you have been fed lies for more than 10 consecutive years of your life & even more because most maibstream sources enforce them as well. Break through the programming.

[@GarageStudio7]

@@Cosmic-Spanner Based on looming those cities should appear to be in the air/levitating...not exactly like the skyline.

[@Magnum-Farce]

@@GarageStudio7 So, you don't understand what atmospheric refraction is. Great start. No, it's not "cool air" champ. It's the differential that create the angular changes in light propagation. It's too funny that you know nothing about this but think you can tell people when they've been lied to, because you watched 20 YT videos. Lol

[@GarageStudio7]

@@Magnum-Farce Your own beloved mainstream scienctists asserts "mirage takes place in hot regions and Looming takes place in cold regions". Moreover if that was the case with this image, this kind of "optical illusion" would result in the skyline hanging midway in the air...& not as it's clearly presented in the image. You are simply regurgitating what mainstream sources are saying without any critical thinking.

[@jonerikrocha]

So they even say a mirage is inverted...yet the pics of Chicago skyline isn’t inverted...🧐

[@InWeCome]

It's not a mirage, it's looming. They explain it in the end, which you clearly missed.

[@BellyLover06]

It's due to a temperature inversion whereby the air directly over the lake is cold while it's warmer further up. Light goes towards colder air so it bends and that's how we see the city from below.

[@ksamsel5809]

The ENTIRE Chicago skyline can be seen every single day of the year from more than 50 miles across Lake Michigan. It's not a mirage or some bullshit explanation of light bending.

[@moshpetroleum8549]

shame @masterMarik - another brainwashed sheep... You are so dumb to actually believe what you are saying :)

[@nocturne000]

@@ksamsel5809 No it can't, I've been there. What are you talking about?

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@ksamsel5809 If FE was true you wouldn't need to state falsehoods in public. Light bends due to density. That's a fact proven by simple lenses and this footage of it happening: Video code: 5Y6ii4vsdsc Get used to it.

[@ksamsel5809]

@@Cosmic-Spanner Meanwhile, there's 15 NASA publications that admit a Flat & Non-rotating Earth. www.galileolied.com/post/15-nasa-research-papers-admit-flat-nonrotating

[@Mitchell-lc5kj]

What a bunch of bullshit this is

[@AlexFoxthrot]

And you surely are a reliable source of knowledge right?

[@Mitchell-lc5kj]

@@AlexFoxthrot it appears you are the minority here you are looking foolish

[@Mitchell-lc5kj]

@@AlexFoxthrot ron skiba hired a boat captain on Lake Michigan. The captain thought ron was nuts until they got 40 miles away and saw the whole Chicago skyline. Look it up.

[@AlexFoxthrot]

@@Mitchell-lc5kj Rob skiba was a conman. These phenomena have an explanation. A sunset alone proves you wrong. Learn basic geometry First, then play the expert.

[@Mitchell-lc5kj]

@@AlexFoxthrot very simple tests. The captain did not believe him until he saw it for himself when things should make you think make you mad you know you’ve been indoctrinated.

[@stuartjacobs3987]

Wow, how do they predict where the moon, sun and planets are then if something 50 miles away isnt really there its refraction. Their logic always opens up other cans of massive massive worms 😳

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Seriously? You know so little about this that you think you had a gotcha argument? WHY? Objects approaching the horizon refract because only the very densest part of the atmosphere causes any significant refraction. Above about 1º from the horizon, you get as low as 1/60th of a degree in many cases, which reduces as you look further upwards. So, because the human eye and many systems won't even "notice" less than 1/60th of a degree... it simply doesn't matter for most predictions of the solar system. So they predict where most objects are fine, until you get to the horizon, then, they can actually measure refraction by predicting where the object should be, and where it is seen. And it's no use crying that refraction doesn't happen., You will see the sun vertically distorted at MOST sunsets. And its no use crying about conspiraceahhhh! because nobody gives a sh until you show you can use evidence. Don't you even realise that none of this flat earth BS is evidence for anything? "Their logic always opens up other cans of massive massive worms 😳" How would you know?

[@robbiehiatt9966]

Stuart makes a very good point, would make laser targeting systems on battle ships quite useless

[@stuartjacobs3987]

@@Cosmic-Spanner because the earths flat, end of chat. If its not, you, personally , prove it to me. I have a purchased the nikon p1000 camera to do tests myself, and the horizon that apparently is 3 miles away at 6ft is bs. So how does that "fact" get debunked by someone like me that understands so little big brain?

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@robbiehiatt9966 No. Lasers aren't used at 5km or more, look up how much they spread at 1km and you'll realise. and the angular deviation of refraction is only normally far less than 1º or so at the horizon. NEXT, refraction is greatest within 1 or 2 º of the horizon. So attack aircraft aren't in that zone.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@stuartjacobs3987 "because the earths flat, end of chat." Great, a truth by assertion fallacy. "If its not, you, personally , prove it to me. I have a purchased the nikon p1000 camera to do tests myself, and the horizon that apparently is 3 miles away at 6ft is bs." It will vary with conditions. Even wiki states this. Why are you ignoring an explanation? Why use ignorance? "So how does that "fact" get debunked by someone like me that understands so little big brain?" Tell us what you debunked. There's nothing in your story. You explained that something that is predicted to happen does indeed happen.

[@nickd523]

33k views and 330 likes. Say you’re a free mason without saying you’re a free mason

[@arthurdduda8233]

Our simulated distortion... uh a magnifying glass.. lmao.. some demonstration.

[@libertyresearch-iu4fy]

So you are incapable of understanding what is reality. Not that surprised.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

It's the same way the atmosphere works during a temperature inversion. There's literally a video on YT that shows the change in optics when they pour liquid nitrogen on a surface and show how what is visible on the other side changes with the change in air temperature. Look it up. I'd wager there's a link to it on McToon's website. And you can find a link to that on McToon's YT channel. Science. Try it.

[@ronandrews8532]

50 miles is only 33 feet of curvature at ground level. A 6 foot man would see even less curvature than that and climbing up a sand dunes would be less and so on. So you could actually see the city from across the lake at 50 miles away. Check your math. There's only less than 8 inches of curvature for every mile. If your trying to convince people that you shouldn't be able to see it doesn't make much sense. It actually make people ignore the argument I'm a skeptic on lots of things trust me, but this video would not convince me of a flat earth. If you don't want people to think it nuts that we live in a globe. Don't debate with this video.

[@MaGaO]

More like a prism than a lens.

[@terraplanarevelacaoportuga3756]

Flat

[@kevinscott367]

It's flat bro.

[@Seasonschangeillchangewiththem]

The example should be done on a scaled down earth globe section for accuracy, not a flat table.

[@TomCoomes]

Mama Of5 hold a basketball right up to your eye. That segment right in front of your eye is nearly flat. All circles / spheres down to a tiny scale are flat lines. Also the city being a smidge under the horizon works in this case just as it were in a sphere.

[@Seasonschangeillchangewiththem]

Another observation here is that the model you use is not a completely scientific method approach to this. You haven’t replicated conditions exact to reality. You’d need a scaled down model with a scaled down atmosphere to mimic the conditions causing the change in what you see.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

"The example should be done on a scaled down earth globe section for accuracy, not a flat table." Here you go: Video code: Dktw9ncLuhg

[@speed_demon420]

Came to say the same. It needs to be done by the scientific method

[@noloferratus]

No to prove it is looming you must also show weather station data from the different locations otherwise your just making unscientific assumptions.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

The explanation IS science, champ. Actually, refraction can be observed in thousands of videos and images and is a part of reams of scientific research. The atmosphere is arranged in a pressure gradient, and so will often cause looming. Even when you see NO refraction happening it is still there, but just not enough to be detectable. As it's a common phenomenon, and explains how we get these views, it's up to you to show why it wouldn't be looming.

[@Magnum-Farce]

"No to prove it is looming you must also" In the live footage you can literally see it changing shape. Get a clue.

[@stevef5122]

Did I miss where they say how high above the waterline he is because everyone seems to say he is at water level and why don't we see the bottom of the buildings?

[@TomCoomes]

@@stevef5122 the photos were taken 250 ft above the shoreline. On Warren Dunes.

[@GabeB1585]

Atmosphere bending light?? People need to bend their rigid minds instead

[@MaGaO]

Ever seen what looked like a puddle on hot tarmac on a sunny day disappear when you moved towards it? That's atmosphere bending light up so you are actually seeing a bit of sky.

[@YahuahIsKing1229]

@@MaGaO magic...

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@YahuahIsKing1229 In all your posts, you haven't managed a single real argument and you used the appeal personal incredulity fallacy every time. You're not making flatties look very good here. Refraction is VERY real as lenses are created based on the same exact science: Light bends in fluids according to density, the atmosphere is a fluid. Video code: WCaHvZQnIws Video code: Dktw9ncLuhg

[@luisfelipesauvalle5807]

And folks keep insisting the earth's rounded

[@paulmeyer4441]

Where's the inversion again?

[@tonyornelas9374]

Now please explain why the benchmarks next to the water all the way around the lake are around 580 feet above sea level. My sourse for the data is the benchmap app.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Because elevation and the local gravitational vector is always directly down towards the surface. The reference of your mark is over a sphere. Next time, try to research your questions.

[@tonyornelas9374]

@@Cosmic-Spanner keep researching. Look for key words like imaginary line.

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

@@tonyornelas9374 "keep researching. Look for key words like imaginary line." You failed to address or falsify my statement. Here it is again: The model states and shows us the reference of those marks is a sphere's surface. Equipotential surfaces have points that are all referenced to the origin of the force affecting them. Keep trying or run away dropping empty statements, it's up to you.

[@PureSimple.]

Lol. That lense is acting like a lense. What a joke.

[@lies137]

the mirage is an up side down reflection ....

[@strikeryachts]

That explains everything.

[@itsikcarmona9845]

Yes. We can see the curvature in some photos. Part of the buildings is hidden by the curvature. Obscured. No doubt earth is a ball , globe.

[@martell203]

Don’t believe your lying eyes

[@pianojonb3]

Naked eye sees about 10 miles.

[@tavares7272]

¡La Tierra se ha mantenido plana desde la creación!

[@franciscovilla1100]

Exactly pobres pendejos que se tragan todo sin cuestionar

[@cornerstoneministries2920]

quick make something up we are missing 200 ft of curvature....lol.....

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Light bends in fluids. You'll just have to live with it.

[@fastnight81]

50 miles?? 🤣😅😂 The earth is 40,070kms round. What on earth is 50miles compared to thousands and thousands of kms?

[@multispeciesangler]

You have to use your brain and you can calculate with the curvature how much lower the horizon would be. At that distance according to the curve theory you'd notice the curve. These images literally prove that the curve theory is bogus. Cognitive dissonance it is and a mirage though amirite?

[@cmaej28]

Hey, flat-earthers... How did that equinox experiment turn out? No, don't bother. I already know the answer. lol

[@SLEEP-236]

To prove temperature inversion we use this special lens🤔🤔😂😂😂😂

[@entangledmindcells9359]

That is because a temperature inversion causes the atmosphere to act just like a lense

[@alvarodroguett2431]

3:14 When I look at the drawing...... tsunami on the way to Chicago! an Michigan too.

[@davidzimmerle8532]

Blah blah blah... What I mean to say.. Its flat.

[@rubex229]

how can you explain seeing a flipped chicago skyline if this depicts flat earth, and better yet where are the lower halves of the buildings?

[@MIGUEL-pt6sc]

NASA FAILS ON KZbin

[@bonham1981]

All the flat earthers in the comments (and around the globe) are completely ignoring the last few seconds of the video: it is mentioned that it's impossible to predict whether one is able to see the skyline or only the top of the tallest buildings, due to changing weather conditions. If the earth was indeed flat, you should be able to see the same part of the Chicago skyline, always. But you cannot.

[@brandond0927]

Just do a little research. If you had the ability to zoom in(if you were there in person) you would see more. But you can't zoom through a curve so the curve isn't there.

[@bonham1981]

@@brandond0927"You can't zoom through a curve, so the curve isn't there". Infallible logic you got there. No, you wouldn't see further with stronger magnification. I did my reasearch, played with a prism the other day, and came to the conclusion that natural phenomena like the one described in the video are awesome. Let me understand what you're trying to say though: you assume that you could see from pole to pole, if only your binos were capable enough?

[@jamalj5149]

Does refraction go away on a flat earth?@@bonham1981

[@jamalj5149]

@@bonham1981 if it were a simulation n u could go into the settings n turn Atmosphere: OFF and Zoom: INFINITE... then theoretically yeah u can see anywhere across a flat earth. But thats far from reality, we have atmosphere and diffraction limited optics thru eyes n glass- a football field sized 747 is a dot in the sky at 35k ft... what do u expect us to resolve across oceans? what's that big/lit? What we do clearly resolve today with zoom tech allows us to KNOW it isn't the ball we're being told. Globe heads call the gaddamn SUN a mirage if its clearly where their model says it shouldnt be! its the ultimate gaslight - at some point u've gotta consider, maybe things are as they appear, n that thats not a crazy thought. We we're never taught about the other side of the coin (i.e. cosmology), only one side, n conditioned to ridicule the other by default.

[@myjourneyence1451]

Hi

[@rporta]

this video actually proves curvature, as you can see: we see only the top of the buildings...if earth was flat, we should see them all bottom to top

[@slypen7450]

Who are you going to believe Moses and your eyes or Freemasons and their science?

[@dited358]

Oh btw, Moses never once mentioned a "flat" earth, nice try tho. This won't catch on, just makes you look silly.

[@Himithor]

NÀSA inspired explanation!!!😅😅😂😂😂😂

[@suleimanshaba3941]

keep dreaming

[@Daddy-d-xk5ic]

So now cooled air is the game changer ...... such a shame any one defending this bullshit. I used to get angry but now it's funny.

[@nickd523]

Nice try but you wouldn’t be able to see a mirage if it were blocked by the curve. So the fact that you see the city (mirage or not) proves that there is no curve because the Earth is Flat

[@joshuadangler9152]

The scientist sad the speed of light varies but that is not possible because it is a constant, everywhere in the Universe. So everything he said then is B.S. 😂🤣

[@larryhorn2982]

Can he do it with water instead of glass?

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

It's a great explanation from the actual photographer, and it's a damned shame that there's so many flerfs in this comment section. Pathetic, really.

[@etell4673]

🦈🦐🌸🥔🌽🥦🍑 this what they think we are.

[@mstaader]

In space: only a black hole can bend light On earth: a few degrees of air temperature difference can bend light

[@itsikcarmona9845]

Itsik Carmona. See my comment to this video. The lattest comment of: "itsik Carmona"

[@Dr-Curious]

You understand there isn't any air in space, right, Einstein?

[@mstaader]

@@Dr-Curious and my point obviously was completely missed

[@Dr-Curious]

@@mstaader No. You made a comparison, as if one system was equivalent to another and implied that we can make assumptions about the scale of an effect. They're not and we cannot.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@mstaader Also you're wrong. Any body of sufficient mass will bend light in space.

[@jajdbakskd9940]

the mirage should show the same thing for our eyes and for the super zooming in camera but that is not the case here if we zoom in with a camera we can see the bottom of the see the mirage should not be picky

[@clintadams8451]

you physically can not prove the earth is flat by looking across a flat body of water. A lake is like a bowl of water, the water is always flat/level when it's contained

[@williamhlinovsky7659]

Clint Adams It's Really Simple Earth is 70% water , if water is always Found to be Flat and Level why would you assume the oceans are any Different. No one can Demonstrate water holding a curve on a ball spinning can they? You just have FAITH that what your being told is true.

[@InWeCome]

No the water is affected by gravity the same way as everything else. It's not flat, and you can't see the curve in a bowl of water. Water is not flat, it merely finds its own level, which on the scale of the earth refers to the surface of a sphere.

[@nocturne000]

@@williamhlinovsky7659 Water wouldn't be "holding a curve" in your example. That's such a crazy line of reasoning I don't know how you how you can say it with any confidence. Tides are a great example of water being effected by gravity. Actually I don't what the flat earth solution for tides are, I'd love to know.

[@williamhlinovsky7659]

Take a Magnet and put it by water you'll see it gets pushed away... your tides are most likely a Magnetic reaction between Sun(+) Moon (-) as it circles a Salt water Conductor...aka oceans 🙂 show me where the Earth performs to 8inches squared per mile drop? And it ACTUALLY BE MEASURED.....You can most days take a picture of CHICAGO'S entire skyline... at 40 miles what's the hidden target 800ft? Why I still see navy pier? Trust me I get it , it sounds strange but when I put to test what we were taught as kids it falls apart. We can see father then we should... most space is CGI and animations... the day you stop ?ing your world is the day they have won. And I'll leave with a Fact... EVERY map every made starts flat and HAS TO BE MODELED to the globe... if were ona globe why cant we map it WITHOUT taking them from Flat maps? 😘

[@InWeCome]

​@@williamhlinovsky7659 When we are a looking at a distant object located on the globe, we are not looking in the direction parallel to the globe, but a bit downwards, directly at the object. This means we are not looking at the actual drop of the Earth’s surface between the spectator and the building, but we need to look at the height of the curvature between them, i.e. the obstacle height. The drop is not equal to the amount hidden from view. While the Chicago drop is 1000 ft, the obstacle height is only 266 ft., which is exactly what you see on the pictures. And no, you can't see the pier from 40 miles away from slightly above sea level. I'm looking forward to your blog where you post your daily video and photo of the Chicago pier to prove the biggest lie in the history of mankind. Such a small effort to prove the existence of such a big lie. luuksteitner.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/globe_spectator_03.jpg

[@cornerstoneministries2920]

these two men are as credible as a ship floating upside down on a globe lolol.......globe theory is sinking fast down a plughole clockwise and counterclockwise based on shape of sink